Appeal 6000827

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • pedestrian safety.

The appeal site is a two-storey semi-detached property on [address], a residential street fronting on to an area of green open space which in combination with the grass verges and front gardens creates a spacious, open character with a landscape quality. Low brick boundary walls are the predominant boundary treatment with intermittent examples of hedging, higher walls and close board fences. Be that as it may, the overall conformity of the generally modest height of the boundary treatments in the area creates a clear sense of openness, that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed wall with pillars and metal railings would be a dominant, stark and unwelcoming visual barrier that would fail to reflect the open character of its immediate surroundings, resulting in an uncharacteristic and incongruous feature in the street scene. By virtue of its height and design the boundary treatment would not readily assimilate into the area. Whilst the railings would allow a degree of visual permeability the accompanying solid, brick pillars and overall height would result in it being at odds with the surrounding boundary treatments by creating a sense of enclosure in an area that is otherwise open in character.

My attention has been drawn to a similar boundary treatment at 19 and [address], however these examples are on a different street and would not be seen with the appeal scheme. They do not therefore indicate that the appeal scheme would sit comfortably in its immediate context. In any event, I must consider the appeal scheme on its own planning merits and have come to my own view on the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. While the proposal would provide a defined frontage between public and private space and would utilise traditional materials found in the surrounding area it would not respect the local character for the reasons given above. I also note an absence of objections to the scheme however this does not preclude a full and proper assessment of the planning merits of the case.

The appellant refers to a fallback position of erecting a wall within the allowances of Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). However, any boundary treatment that met the conditions and limitations of permitted development would not be a closely comparable form of development to the appeal scheme. Furthermore, the effects on the character and appearance of the area would not be similar. Therefore, I find the suggested fallback position to have limited weight. The proposal would improve security at the appeal site which the appellant indicates has been subject to criminal activity. However, it has not been shown that the fence is the only option available to achieve the appellant’s desired aims.

In conclusion, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Accordingly, it would conflict with Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan (2021) (HLP). Amongst other things, these policies require development to have an acceptable impact on local amenity and the built environment, and to demonstrate high and consistent design standards.

The appeal site is located midway along [address] and is separated from the highway by a footpath and grass verge. The boundary treatment would possess a varied height as a result of its pillar and rail formation, with a reasonably wide gap serving the driveway. Due to the variation in height of the proposal and the regular gaps in between the railings, there would be mutual visibility of varying degrees for both drivers using the driveway and pedestrians using the footpath. Furthermore, [address] is a typical residential street, and so pedestrians would be aware that there could be a vehicle exiting the driveway, which would not be travelling at speed as it edges out into the road. For these reasons, even though the pillar nearest the driveway would exceed the recommended height outlined by the Council, satisfactory visibility could be achieved and there would not be an adverse effect on pedestrian safety as a consequence, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be harmful to pedestrian safety. and would be in line with the guidance set out in the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011) insofar as it advises that all development should have satisfactory and safe provision for pedestrians.

The Council also refer to HLP Policy 24 on the decision notice. However, as this policy primarily relates to parking standards and the Council accept the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the existing parking arrangement it has not been determinative.

The proposal would not be harmful to pedestrian safety, however, my above findings in relation to character and appearance bring the proposal into conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.